The Sun. — London, England, 1838-02-28 00:00:00

that the knowledge that punishment might follow from the course he was adopting, urged him still more strongly to ex press his dissent from the decision which the House had last night come to. He expressed his fullest concurrence in the views of the Hon. Member for Dublin, and he hoped that he was not violating the rules of the House when he read and handed in his adoption of the expressions of the Hon. Member for Dublin.--( Cries of " Order, order.") The Hen. Member produced a paper, which he was proceeding to read amidst tre- Mendous cries of " Order," when Lord JOHN RUSSELL felt it to be his duty to state that he fully agreed in what had fallen from the Right Hon. Gentleman in the chair.—( Cheers from both sides of the House.) He hoped the Honourable Gentleman to whom that expression of the Right Honourable Gentleman's opinion was addressed would abide by that opinion, and yield to it that deference which the authority, and station, and experience of the Right Honourable Gentleman seemed to demand. He should regret if that should not be the case, because, after the de cision which the House had come to, it would be a mark of dis respect to the House to continue the practice of reading any in tentional statement of an opinion which the House had thought deserving of its censure. He was aware that if the Hon. Member persisted the House might deal differently with him. But he hoped the Hon. Member's own sense and the finding What was due to the advice of the Chair and the opinion of the House would lead him not to persist in this proceeding. With his views he certainly thought it very natural that Gen tlemen who concurred in those views might not be satisfied with the rote of last night, and might wish to state the rea sons of their objections to it, but that having been done, he thought that any further step with respect to this matter would only be calculated irregularly to impede the proceedings of thelHous°, and he trusted the Hon. Member would nut feel it necessary to push his motion.—( Cheers. ) Mr. ROCHE said as the objection of the House in gene ral, and of the Noble Lord in particular, appeared to be the reading of these words from a paper—(Cries of " Oh ! oh I" and manifestations of impatience)—as, he repeated, that seemed to be the objecticn, it would be sufficiently reconcile able to his views to state those views in his place.—( Re hewed cries of " Order.") If he was out of order the Speaker Would call him to order, and that call he should be happy to obey.—( Renewed impatience.) Ile begged now to state that ne most fully concurred in the sentiments of the Honourable Member for Dublin, which he believed to be the sentiments of his constituents, whom he was there to represent, and whom if he failed to represent from fear or any other mo tive, he felt that ho ought no longer to be permitted to hold his seat. Mr. HUME—I move, Sir, that the words of the Hon. Member be taken down.—(Cries of " Chair, chair," " Or- Ider," in the midst of which the Hon. Member for Kilkenny !proceeded.) He thought it perfectly consistent with the rules of the House, that if a Member's words were thought impro- Per or objectionable, another Member should move that they be taken down. The words of the Hon. Member for the county of Cork were, that he fully adopted the words used by the Hon. Member for Dublin, and he now moved that the words thus adopted by the Hon. Member he taken down.— (Order, order, Chair, and general impatience.) The Clerk of the House having written down the decla ration of the Hon. Member for the county of Cork, that he fully adopted the expressions lately made use of by the Hon. beg for Dublin, The SPEAKER rose, and read the words to the House as t akenby the Clerk. Mr E. B. ROCHE—Those are the expressions, and I fall adopt them. Mr HUME—And add—which words the Honourable and Learned Member for Dublin made use of at the Crown and ,Anchor, and admitted in his place in this House.—(Great l aughter, and cheers from the Opposition.) Mr. E. B. ROCHE, again rose, amidst cries of " Spoke, 'Poke," and " Order," the Honourable Member said—l r ise for the purpose of explanation. (" Order, order," i " Spoke.") I wish to add to the words already taken down °Y the Clerk of the House these words—" and which ex pressions were made use of by the Honourable and Learned Member at the Crown and Anchor, and which he admitted in niS place in this House." Mr. C. BULLER—I hope the House will observe the Malic e (as we understood the word) of the Hon. Member for Kilkenny. (Great laughter, and calls of " Order.") He did not rise to order. „Mr. HUME th en s a id if the Honourable Member for leitire ar d had not risen to order he (Mr. Hume) was in pos :ession of the House. The Honourable Member was at Liberty to state to the House that he concurred in the opinions of the Honourable Member for Dublin, and it was not usual t 0 object to have the words taken down.—(" Hear, hear," f r ant the Ministerial benches.) There were two modes of e ndeavouring to convince the House of the folly of those pro .7edie. The first mde was to attempt to reason against em ; and when reason failed the next best course was to at tempt to ridicule them. His (Mr. Hume's) desire was to show the House that if they proceeded in the course which they had adopted there was no saying to what extent those Proceedings were to go. It was for this reason that ho had advised the House not to pursue the course which th ey had Persevered in. The Hon. Member for Cork bad taken a course which there might be fifty others prepared to take, !I'd which, if they did take, he ( Mr. Hume) Would be ready a ` a do the same. If this question was brought forward with t , i .:fieter of protecting the honour and dignity of the House he th " e not see how, if they punished one for using this language, Y ‘st.tld refuse to punish another. He thought that these proc eedings were at variance with the freedom of speech sahie, t h the House had a right to enjoy, and it certainly was a e first ti me t h a t an y M em ber of the House had heard ex reseions us e d at the Crown and Anchor subjected in so formal 4 y manner to the consideration of the House. M. C. BULLER said that it was difficult to understand t wha t was the real question before the House—whether it was h 0 words o f the lion. Member for Cork to he taken down , or 1, ' c e amendment of the Hon. Member for Meath. The Hon. Au nber for Kilkenny had stated that his object in ha vi ng the ~.I.M ; ° l'ds of the Hon. Member for Cork taken do wn was to turn r trb ridicule the decision of the House. — (A laugh . ) Ile 'en tirely concurred with his Hon. Friend, and should allow him 'a exercise his powers of ridicule—( A laugh)—to the full extent in that respect. But his Honourable Friend should recollect that pleasantry might be carried too far, and that b e l of king appared t have ben ket u too lng. He It ''ie d red jo that this was a o matter e which p was p not co o nsidered joke by most Members of the House. H e would tl t :dentsly esk the House to consider the consequences of i t . Proceedings. Did they suppose that they could withim punitycarry apersonal motion against a distinguished MMem berof the House ? The only effect would be to provoke the ati ona l feeling to rally round hi m. Th e H on . M em b e r f o r dark had to-night exhibited a generous feeling that well be ettelle his y o uth, though accompanied by the indiscretion so g htural to his years. Could they doubt that this feeling would e x end to the constituency which he represented ? He (Mr. Buller) was not t h ere to j us tif y t h e wor d s which the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin had made use of. Agreeing in mu ch of the censure that had been passed upon this kind of tr ibunal, he could not agree in the strong language in which }I had couched it. The Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin bad stated that his (Mr. Buller's) words had justified e t languag e h o bad used. As far as a Member who had 1 4, en much pai n s on the subject, without heat or party feeling, 'e had en d eavoure d to ca ll a tt en ti on to the evils that prevailed Ileder the present system, but in doing so it would have been I s!'from hi s w i s h to use o ff ens i ve l anguage . He would never Wi sh ll to c ouc h hi s sen t ences so a s to provoke the feelings of ell of hon our . H e h a d wished in the most calm and delibe rate term s to ca ll t h e attent i on o f th e Ho u se to the evils of the l'r!sent system of trying election petitions. To illustrate the ilpinion which the country entertained on the subject, he 41 said that he believed the Gentlemen who com posed that House to be Gentlemen of the highest edu ia4tion, the highest honour, and the highest rank in the ~ system Hear, hear)—and, ho asked, what must the Istem be which would make the people of the country be ;ere that gentlemen such as he had described were, in re nect to these tribunals, neither bound by their honour nor t heir o a th s . H e did not sa y t h at t hi s o pi n i on wa s well founded. p ar from it; but he used the expression to show that the 13 ,,e0p1e of the country had no confidence in the present system. "ow, when such an opinion was entertained by the public, he asked the House was it right to punish the Hon. Member fee Dublin for the expression of that opinion although be had expressed it in terms of more than ordinary coarseness ? He (Mr. Buller) would much rather bo stigmatised in lan- Ftlage whose virulence indicated the presence of passion than ? 1 terms of calmness and deliberation, which were sure to lay* a much greater and more permanent effect. The R ig ht all .fu nctions in a neighbouring country, and he believed the only : ll ° Point on which all parties in that distracte d country agreed as to the groat ability and impartialityh with whichld the ifiernised those functions.—(Cheers.) nd ow world e xercised A b ench, Hon. Member feel when he descend ed from the judicial if he had heard it whispered that he had acted with 15 1 3 1 as towards hi s p o litical friends ? It seemed to him (Mr. uil er) that nothing could stand a g ainst the plain sense and argument of the Noble Lord lastnigbt. If proceedings like the b r r esent were persevered in, was it not to be ex p ected that t ;i l ° `,, i tical opp onen ts would retaliate ? He had see n lan g ua g e uPe of towards the Members of that House in oiPeeehes delivered at Conservative meetings, o man of and which was I v very offensive nature—language such as n individual could bear to have addressed to bim, and winch any d jlividual Member might feel called on to notice, only the in __Yirluality was lost in the largeness of the imputations. Well the Speaker of the House, however safe from the effect 3 : 1101 attacks in the dignity and high position and imparti alit y a , a i s ,“ o 'eb all parties conceded to him, had not escaped them . w, if they were to adopt proceedings of this nature, there arid be no e nd to the breaches of the privileges of the M ember which they would feel called on to notice. The Hon. pr ocee d e d to allude to the charge of the Bishop of hteter, which contained a strong censure against some of Members of that House; and although some Hon. Mem bers might please themselves on the sagacious quirk that the th i lnage had been spoken of the last Parliament, and not of 0 e present, y e t, h e asked, was it decent, or gentlemanlike, o r f) creditabl e , that such language should he made use After some - further obeervatioes, the Hon. Member con cluded by begging the Hon. Member for Meath to with raw his name from the amendment. The Ho n. M e m ber should have some respect to his feelings, and he must very With the Bishop of Exeter. Mr - GILL ON considered the present proceeding anything but creditable to the House, and calculated to cover all their l i t : cl eeedings with ridicule. He was sure the Honourable and Learned Member for Dublin would not take the c ensure he was l to rece i ve muc h to h eart , as c ertainly in similar circum stances be (Mr. Gillon) should not. The censure was the cen 4r,"e, of a maj or ity o f the House for whose (pinions he (Mr. i °n) entertained no respect whatever. This was a dange Qt ts Power which the House were attempting to exercise. It THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1838. was nothing more nor less than an attempt to put down public opinion. On the question being put, Lord J. RUSSELL said that as the Honourable Gentle man intended to take a division on this question, he would say that he ( Lord John Russell) thought it unnecessary to do so, and would certainly vote against his amendment. He wished the House to recollect that for some years there had been the most violent attacks, in language the most abusive, on Mem bers of that House—( Hear, hear)—and on persons belonging to his aide of the House.—( Hear, hear.) He begged the House also to recollect that, in the autumn of 183t3, the very word " perjury" was applied to Members of that douse with only this variation, " treachery, aggravated by perjury ;" and he begged the House further to recollect that at the time of these proceedings, he said that he hoped that no Member would think it necessary to notice them otherwise than by contempt.—( Hoar, hear.) He was glad also to say that he House responded at that time to the sentiment, and he hoped it would new call to mind the forbearance of the Members at that time so stigmatized.—( Hear.) They did not think it necessary, although no doubt their feelings were sorely wounded, to call upon that House for any vindictive proceed ings against those who had used the expression. The House must also recollect that at various times the most violent ex pressions had been used, derogatory to the character of several of the Queen's Ministers, not even in their capacity as public men, but against their honour as gentlemen—(Hear)—and yet he could safely say that never, by prosecution or proscription, by taking away of station or office, did they show any resent ment for those expressions.—(Hear.) The state of the case at present before the House was this :—An Hon. Member of the House had used most offensive expressions with regard to a party to which he was opposed. An Hon. Member of that party brought forward the suliect as a question of privilege, and the motion was affirmed by 254 Members of that House, of whom 253 belonged to the assailed party. That was not the usual mode of deciding on questions of privilege ; and he must say that when men were accused of perjury, those accused were not the most proper to put into the jury-box to try the case.—( Hear.) He derived some consolation from the deci sion of the House—marked, as he thought it was, with little forbearanc©, from the very insignificant nature of the punish. ment now proposed to be inflicted—( Hear)—a punishment cer tainly supported by one precedent, but that one was not one of great importance—it was one in which a person engaged in the impeachment of Warren Hastings resented expressions used by Honourable Members of that House. The other was the case of Sir Francis Burdett, in which the decision of a majority negatived the proposal to censure him. But although he ( Lord J. Russell) did not think those precedents bore much on the present case, he begged to say that in those ca ses the House was gradually improving from a worse kind of conduct to a better. The ancient opinion of the House was that any expressions derwaatory; to its dignity should be pu nished by imprisonment, but in the opinion of the present day such vindictiveness was totally ineffective, and the House only took such notice of the breaches of privilege as directly inter fared with its functions, and forbore noticing any other, par ticularly when an expression of resentment was not intended to lead to any other result. —( Hear.) After having adopted this course for some years, he feared the House was now going back from better to worse. He might be told that the pre sent was the mildest course, but in fact it was little else than the resolution before adopted. He was afraid that if the pre sent motion was persisted in many Members from a motive of retaliation would revive a system of violent and intem perate punishment that had been for many years disused. It was for this reason that he greatly lamented the course about to be adopted by the House, particularly in a case in which the whole House was not affected, but merely that portion of its Members who formed the majority in this proceeding. He could see no good from this mode of proceeding. If any con sequence followed it must be evil, but he hoped that the Hon. Members who felt with the Hon. Member for Dublin would do their best to restrain their feelings, and would refrain from carrying the matter farther than the present division. He thought that the only chance of such a proceeding as the pre sent ending without any evil and pernicious results was, that the contest should not be continued after the present vote, and that the whole House should be satisfied with the decision now arrived at.—( Hear, hear.) Strangers were then ordered to withdraw. On returning to the Gallery, we found the numbers to be.— For the motion Against it Majority The SPEAKER then read the resolution, which was— " That Mr. O'Connell do appear in his place, to be repris mended by the Speaker." Mr. HLTME then observed, amidst much noise and confu sion, that other Members had been equally guilty with the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin. Mr. GILLON—I adopt the words of the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin. Mr. HUME—I beg that the words of the Hon. Member for Falkirk be taken down. MARINE OFFICERS. Considerable buzz and excitement followed Mr. Hume's motion, in the midst of which Lord G. L E NNO X got up up, and said—Mr. Speaker, it is with the greatest regret I find myself obliged to call the attention of the House to the state of the officers of the Royal Marines.—[The abruptness of the transition from Mr. O'Con nell's breach of privilege to the Royal Marines caused uni versal laughter.] When it had subsided the Noble Lord pro ceeded to complain of the conduct of Government with re spect to those officers. He said that Government had acknowledged the slowness of promoticn, and promised to nenedy it. He thought the time was come when this corps should be made effectual. He regretted that the reduction of the Marine officers necessarily rendered the corps inef fective. It was but fair that this service should be put upon the same footing with the others, and that the increase in each should bear some fair proportion. There was no service in which promotion was so slow, though there was none in which it was so much called for. In 1837 was their jubilee year, for there was more promotion in that year than in any which preceded it, and yet it was nothing in proportion to what took place in the Artillery Department, and other branches of the service. The Noble Lord then moved the following resolution:—" To call the attention of the House to the slow promotion of the officers of the Royal Marines, and to move that an humble Address be presented to her Ma jesty, praying that her Majesty will be graciously pleased to take into her gracious consideration the expediency of adopt ing some plan to accelerate promotion generally in the corps of the Royal Marines, so that it may keep pace in a fair and equitable degree with those branches of her Majesty's forces whose system of promotion is progressive, and also to take the case of the Captains of the Royal Marines into her Majesty's consideration, with a view of placing them upon the same footing as those of her Majesty's regiments of the line ; and likewise to provide some measure for the benefit and relief of those First Lieutenants of the Royal Marines who served during the late war." Captain BOLDERO seconded the motion. He observed upon the difference of promotion in the Navy and the Marines, though the relative numbers engaged in the service were now the same as formerly. After the mutiny of the Nore, a mark of Royal favour was bestowed upon the Marines in the title of Royal, and in making their Captain's pay equal to that of the line ; but this was only nominal, for the Captains of the line had 201. per annum additional, under the title of effective ba ' lance. The Marines were an injured body, they had per formed gallant and brilliant services, which, as in the instance of the Shannon and the Chesapeake, had never met with ade quate reward. Mr. C. WOOD said that unless a total change were to take place in the rules of the service, in which promotion went lay seniority, it would be impossible to reward particular ac tions, however brilliant or successful. At the time of Lord Auckland coming into office tho matter had been taken into consideration. The first measnre proposed was the retirement of inefficient officers, and everybody was acquainted with the fact that there were at that time many inefficient officers in the corps. Every individual officer pronounced to be unfit was, on the report being made, placed on full pay, being allowed to retain his rank. He did not know how, and thought it quite impossible, to go further. The next step taken was to encourage the retirement of the commandants, to make way for the promotion of the other officers. Unless seniority was to he abandoned be did not see what further steps could be taken for the acceleration of promotion. He had previously resisted a similar motion on the ground of its impossibility, and he now resisted the present motion on the ground of its being an invasion of the Royal prerogative. Mr. HUME protested against tho doctrine of Parliamen tary interference being unconstitutional. The Marines were worse treated than any other corps, and he retained the opi nion he had previously expressed that it arose from their want of aristocratic connections. He would place the Marines as near as possible on the same footing as troops of the line. The motion was not an interference with the Royal prero gative, but a request to her Majesty to exercise the preroga tive she possessed. Sir C. B. VE RE hoped some measure would be adopted to maintain an ample proportion of officers in the upper classes of the Marine service.! Lord W. LENNOX said, what he wished was, to see the Marine force placed on an equal footing with other corps. In the Ordnance clause of the Navy Estimates there was a sum of 4,4901. to be divided among the army and the navy as retir ing pensions for officers of superior rank, and yet ho found only two Major-Generals of the Marines on the list, with only 1501. a-year each, while two - Rear-Admirals, their juniors in rank and in standing, had each 350/. A strong case in favour of the Marine force had been made out, and after the observa tions of the Hon. Member for Kilkenny, who, as far as the public money was concerned, was the greatest screw in the House--( Laughter)—he (Lord W. Lennox) trusted that no Hon. Member would refuse his assent to the motion of his Noble Relative. Sir T. TROUBRIDG E, as a Lord of the Admiralty, had occasion to make minute inquiries respecting the efficiency of Marine officers of all classes, with a view to their being placed on the retired list ; and the result of those inquiries was that, in the greater number of cases, he could not recommend them. One of them, the Lieutenant- Colonel of the corps, was in the act of mounting his horse to manoeuvre the battalion of ma rines at the time he arrived there, and he ( Sir T. Troubridge) would venture to say that no officer could be more efficient. The same thing occurred among the Captains, one of whom, though returned as inefficient, was only forty years of age, and was in the habit of walking twenty miles a day. He was now in the Mediterranean service. He ( Sir T. Troubridge) with all his desire to serve the corps, could not, consistenty with his duty to the country, consent to place these gentlemen on the retired list. Again, if the motion of the Noble Lord, in re gard to the subject of an increase of pay to the Marines, were to be carried, what would be the consequence ? Why, that every other branch of the naval service would advance a simi , lar claim, and it would not be refused. He concluded by im ploring the House to reflect and consider well before they took the Executive of the navy from the hands of the Board of Admiralty. Captain A'COURT bore testimony to the invariable good conduct of the corps of Royal Marines. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that there was very great inconvenience in the motion. The Hon. Secretary of the Admiralty had placed the subject on its proper grounds. Were any of the Honourable Mem bers opposite prepared to forego the prerogative of the Crown on this occasion? Such would be the effect of affirming the motion. The Right Honourable Gentle man then entered into a recapitulation of the statement re specting promotion in the Marine service made by the Hon. Secretary to the Admiralty, for the purpose of giving those Hon. Members who were not in the House at the time it was , made, an opportunity of forming a judgment on the subject. It would be seen by that statement, that the promotion in the Marine corps was at least four times more rapid than that in any branch of the Civil service of the Government, and much greater also than that in the service of the East India Com pany. By the motion of the Noble Lord the Government was placed in an extraordinary position ; for whereas, heretofore, according to custom, they were uniformly charged with ex travagance, now they were charged with undue penury. But be would ask, was the House now about to establish a new rule with regard to the whole service, for that would inevitably be the result of adopting the motion of the Noble Lord? It was a principle of the Monarchy, that promotion in all its ser vices should proceed from the Crown, and not from the Par liament ; and therefore he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) could not countenance any proposition which would affect that principle. The Right Hon. Gentleman concluded by moving, as an amendment, " That there be laid on the table of the House a copy of the Order in Council of July, 1837. respect ing- the promotion of Officers in the Marine service." Captain BOLDE RO said that the allusion made to his motives on this question by the Secretary of the Admiralty was not justified, for he could assure the House that he was solely influenced by a sense of duty, and by an honourable and upright feeling. The CHANCELLOR of the EXC'IEQUER and Mr. WOOD explained that no improper motives were attributed to the Hon. and Gallant Officer. Sir H. DALRYMPLE said that he was always opposed to any interference with the prerogative of' the Crown in naval or military matters, but he did nut think this was a question of that nature. He admitted that a great deal had been done in favour of the Marines, but still much remained to be done for them before justice could be accomplished. Sir J. CA RNAC said that if the Marines were not a useful and efficient body the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought not to suffer them to be a charge upon the country ; and, if they were efficient, the same justice ought to be done to them as to the Army and Navy. Mr. G 0 ULBU RN said that the view he took of the ques tion was that there was a general complaint that jnstice was not done to the Marines ; and, looking upon that body as a most valuable addition to our naval and military strength, he should support the motion befote the House. Sir H. VIVIAN said that he was the last man in the world who would do otherwise than support any measure in favour of the Royal Marines, but he thought the production of the papers which the Chancellor of the Exchequer moved for would be perfectly satisfactory on this subject, and show how the Marines had really been dealt with as compared with other corps. Captain PEC HELL said that he could not see that any injustice had been done to the Royal Marines. He believed that they had received as much of favour and promotion as the Navy, or any other branch of the service. Admiral ADAM said he was sure when the papers moved for by the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be produced, they would show that no injustice had been done to the Royal Marines. After a few words from Lord G. LENNOX in reply, The SPEAKER suggested that tile Hon. Member's mo tion could not be moved in the amended shape he wished, as an amendment had been moved thereon. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER then with drew his amendment pro forma, and Lord G. LENNOX obtained leave to conclude his motion with the word "progressive." The House then divided, when there appeared— For the motion lOO Against it B7 Majority The other Orders of the Day were then disposedof, and the House adjourned at a Quarter to One o'Clock. HOUSE OF LORDS, Fri. 27. The L•RD CHANCELLOR took his scat on the Woolsack at Five o'Clock. On the motion of Lord REDESDALE, the Custody of Insane Persons Bill was read a third time. Lord DACRE presented petitions from Wisbeach, and various other places, praying for the immediate abolition of n,..gro slavery. Lord LYNDHURST presented a petition from the Cord waincrs of Glasgow, the effect of which was not heard in the gallery. Lord ORFORD presented a petition from King's Lynn, praying for the abolition of negro apprenticeship. ROMAN CATHOLICS' OATHS. The Bishop of EXETER stated that he had been in trusted with the presentation of a petition which involved a subject so important, that he felt it necessary to give notice el the period at which he would present it. He therefore gave notice that on Thursday next he will present a petition from cer tain inhabitants of the City of Cork, praying that measures may he taken to render effectual the sworn engagements of Roman Catholics, not to subvert the present Church Establishment, and nut to weaken the Protestant religion or Protestant Government. The Marquis of CLEVELAND presented a petition from the Mayor, Burgesses, and Common Council of Stockton upon-Tees, praying for the immediate and entire emancipa- tion of the Negroes. The Duke of SUTHERLAND presented a petition from a place, the name of which we did not hear, to the same effect. Lord RADNOR presented a petition from Bradford, in Wiltshire, praying for Vote by Ballot. NEGRO SLAVERY. • Lord SEAFORD moved for certain Colonial returns af fecting Negro Slavery, which— Lord BROUGHAM considered, would all be embraced in the returns he hifd already moved for. Lord BROUGHAM presented petitions from Paul -street Chapel, Taunton, Nortlifeatherton, Somersetshire, Salem Chapel, Wellingborough, a parish in Cumberland, Little \Valsam, Burnham Market, Aylesharn, Cardiff, the United Secession Church, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Silver-street Cha pel, Taunton, and some other places, praying for the imme diate and entire abolition of Slavery. The Noble and Learned Lord stated, that he had found, that instead of their Lordships' decision negativing his (Lord B.'s) motion upon this subject a week ago having calmed the public mini, or abated public zeal upon this question, it had seemed to act as a lever to rouse to yet more strenuous exertion, on the part of all classes, to have measures adopted for the immediate abolition of slavery. None of the usual arts for excitement had been resorted to, in reference to this question, aid yet he had never perceived a more unanimous call from the public for the adoption of any measure than there was now made for the one he had undertaken to advocate. Un der these circumstances he felt he should not discharge his duty if he did not give, as ho now gave, notice that ho should, almost immediately after the Easter recess, again submit the question to their Lordships, pledging him self that on that occasion he should take the sense of the house upon the proposition, so that every Member of the House should have an opportunity of then recording his opinion. A conversation took place across the table between Lord ELLENBOROVUH, Lord BROUGHAM, and the Marquis of LANSDOWNE, in reference to certain Colonial returns which had been moved fur, but not yet laid on the table, in which Lord Brougham stated that, should the returns not be laid on the table in proper time, he should probably be under the necessity of postponing his motion, which stood for Friday next, for a day or two. What he wanted was the Order in Council of July last ; also the Order in Council of the Ist of March preceding; and a copy of the Colonial Act. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE laid on the table certain returns. After a few words from Lord BnovoitAm, The Marquis of LANSDOWNE laid the returns upon the table. Lord BROUGHAM then fixed for Tuesday next his mo tion respecting Negro Slavery, and presented a petition from New Brunswick for its abolition. THE GLASGOW COTTON SPINNERS. The NOBLT3 Loan then presented a petition from the Be nevolent Society of Smiths, for mitigation of the sentence on the Glasgow Cotton Spinners ; and also a petition from the parish of St. Michael, in the city of Dublin, for the rbolition of tithes, and for the Irish Municipal Corporation Reform. MISS NEWMAN. Lord BROUGHAM begged to put a question to the Noble Viscount at the head of her Majesty's Government, re specting a matter which had taken place at the late meeting of the Middlesex Magistrates. It was there stated that Miss Newman, who had been convicted of various robberies, and sentenced to 14 years transportation, was favoured with a commutation of the punishment to imprisonment in the Peni tentiary, when she was removed to Bedlam on account of pre tended madness, and was now living there in comparative luxury. It was also stated that the matron of that establish ment, upon close observation, was convinced of the assump tion, and threatened to subject Miss Newman to the discipline of the establishment, if she persisted in the imposition. He begged to ask if that was true ? Lord MELBOURNE replied, that it was certainly true that Miss Newman had been so convicted and sentenced ; and, at the recommendation of the Judge, the sentence was commuted to three years in the Penitentiary, whence she was removed to Bedlam, upon the representation of the medical officers of that establishment. In Bedlam, however, it was di sco vered that she was perfectly sane, and that she had been so throughout. This was communicated to the Secretary of state last night. With respect to the confinement of the three children in the House of Correction, the best way would be to draw up a report of all the circumstances, and to lay it on the table.—( Hear.) They had been sent up from the country, by the Magistrates, under sentence of transporta tion, which had been passed on there for the purpose of re moving them from their parents, by whom they were in structed in crime. The Secretary of State sent them to the House of Correction, for the purpose of reformation. It was not true that they were subjected to solitary confinement, which was not inflicted upon any prisoner, except as an addi tional punishment for misconduct in the prison. Nor was it true that any adults had become insane through the severity of their sufferings. With respect to the cases last night brought Forward by the Noble and Learned Lord, his (Viscount Mel bourne's) Noble Friend the Secretary of State was of opinion, considering the gravity and weight of these ch irges, and the effect that they were likely to have on the public mind, that it would be advisable to have some report drawn up and laid be fore both Houses of Parliament.—( Hear, hear.) He (Viz count Melbourne) did not consider the peculiar object of the complaint made by the Noble and Learned Lord last night. Was it that the punishment was too severe, or that it was im proper ? These three children had been convicted at the Quarter Sessions. The were each ten years old. Lord LYNDHURST—The youngest seven years and a half—the others eight and ten. 3 rlViscount MELBOURNE—I believe that what I state is the real fact of the case. Lord LYNDHLIRST—I have spoken with a magistrate who has seer, the children, and who has investig kted the mat ter with Treat attention, and he says that the youngest is seven and a half. Viscount MELBOURNE believed that they were all ten years old, but that did not matter, for they were, at all events, of a very tender age. The parents of these children were of a most profligate disposition, and given to plundering, and in, the habit of doing that which had a great tendency to increase! one of the greatest moral crimes of this day—an evil hardly) known 30 or 40 years ago—namely, robbery by children. These children were sent up from the country, where they bad been prosecuted, in order to remove them from the con troul of their parents, and to give the Government means of reforming them. Now, with respect to the manner in which they had been treated. The establishment was managed by a Committee, who were directed by particular rules, sugs gested, he believed, by a Committee of that House, who sat in 1835. The Secretary of State gave no peculiar direction with respect to these children, and though he had a general controul, if there had been any unusual severity or harshness, certainly his Noble Friend was not more than generally re sponsible. With respect to the solitary confinement, he (Vis count Melbourne) believed there was no such thing as solitary confinement. There was no solitary confinement—that was complete seclusion in cells, without being seen, without going to meals, to public worship, or to the general instruction which was afforded in that establishment. The report which he had received with respect to those children was, that they had regular exercise twice in the day—that they attended chapel twice on Sundays, and twice during thel week, to receive the religious instructions of the Chap-' lain and the schoolmaster—and that, further, twice in the week they received a visit from the Governor, and that they had an opportunity of applying to see him whenever they pleased, and that they were constantly visited by ladies,' who sp e nt a c o n s id era bl e ti me w ith them. This could no he considered a very great hardship. This report also stated that these children, since they had been in the establishment, bad greatly improved in their morals, general habits, ands learning. The Noble and Learned Lord last night alsoz; brought forward the case of two men, whom he said had been kept in solitary confinement. The names of these men were Welch and Clay. They had been sent to the Penitentiary, having lived very ill-conducted lives. They were never in solitary confinement except for prison of fences. Welch had been reported thirty-one times and punished fifteen times, making altogether twenty-two days— the longest period at a time being three days. Clay had been reported six times and confined in a dark cell five days two separate times. Lord LYNDHURST said that one of the Magistrates had himself seen the children, and he had told him distinctly that the youngest was not more than seven and a half years old when she was first placed in the prison. Lord Hale had stated, and he believed it to be the law of the country, that no child could committ a felony un der the age of seven. If this child, then, had just turned that age, it seemed to him that the punishment inflicted had been very severe ; for to punish such a child with a severity which would be considered considerable for persons of mature age was highly improper and inconsistent with the spirit of the law. But, further, it appeared that the theft committed by this child had been committed at the instigation of her mother, who had been indicted for receiving the goods which the child had stolen. The mother was tried and con victed of that offence, and was sentenced to six months' im prisonment, whilst the child was sentenced to transportation for seven years. Now, he had said, to impose that punish ment on the child, was, in the highest degree, improper, and upon that ground he had imputed some blame to the Noble Lord the Home Secretary ; but it was said that the Noble Secretary was no party to that transaction. He (Lord Lynd hurst) fully admitted that; but the sentence must have been brought under his consideration, because there could be no confirmation of it without his consent; and the Noble Lord therefore, had been a party to the confirmation of a sentence of transportation for seven years on a child not much more tTian seven years old, for a theft which she had committed at the instigation of her mother. Now, had any contradiction been given to that part of the statement ? The Noble Vis. count said they had not been committed to solitary confine ment. Ho was aware of the distinction, and he had stated that they had been punished by what was called separate con finement, which to persons of that age and under the circum stances amounted to solitary confinement. But let them mark the statement of the Noble Viscount. During the whole of the night the child was secluded, and during a great part of the day ; still she was allowed to take exercise for a certain time, but during that time she was not permitted to communi cate with any person—she was not allowed to go to church on Sunday, and on two occasions in the course of the week, and for three hours—three hours only in the whole week—she was allowed to go to school. Was not that in reality solitary con finement ? The Noble Viscount nad stated that his represen tation was incorrect with respect to Welsh, whom he had stated to have suffered considerably in health of body and mind. Now, upon that point he had received a letter from a magis trate which confirmed his statement.- The statement of the Noble Viscount might be correct, but it was at least sufficient to show that the matter ought to be put into a course of in vestigation, and if the Noble Viscount would propose a Corn. initte.e to inquire into these cases he (Lord Lyndhurst) should be most happy and ready to attend every hour of its sitting. He was only desirous of ascertaining the truth.—( Hear.) It was to be remembered that the Penitentiary was directly under the superintendence of Government. It was visited and con ducted by persons appointed by the Government, and every thing, therefore, which took place in an establishment of that nature, so managed and directed, ought to be watched with peculiar vigilance, and it was for that reason partly that he had felt it his duty to call the attention of the House to the subject of these cases, and more particularly to that species of punishment which had been alluded to, beca use h e L a d b een a party to those proceedings on which their Lordships had been unanimously of opinion—(llear, hear)—that was, ex tension of solitary confinement—and he was unable to distin guish between that and separate confinement—beyond a very limited time was harsh, unnecessary, and severe, and had ex pressed that opinion by adopting the amendments which he had proposed to the series of measures then under their consi deration. Lord BROUGHAM entirely agreed with his Nuble and Learned Friend that the distinction between separate and so litary confinement was most flimsy, shadowy, and unsubstantial. o a b r j al ec ee t r ion to solitary confine- Wit h regard to the case of the young ;the child, an defencepdt,ahreent secondly, and t o ch f hai t tl h di e .t Magistrates was that the child was so young that every means c t l pi to aoli n to 0, t reclaim hsecp owNuaogswli ,absolutely in merit was,tothattheleilt:sreYhe'tad no tendency to cure persons of their ways—they thievish propensitie s, or to deter others from the s ame offence , sendparent the aid parentchild o might Botany b e Bay,effected or in theytwo and that its effects were g rievous to be consi dered. The separation of the might might send the chil d to Botan y Ba y . In this case th ere could be no doubt that t he mother was the p rinci p al offen der , but the child was sente nced to transportation, the moth er to six months' imprisonm ent. He should have thou g ht it w as rea sonable if the mot her had received the more severe punish ment;but perhaps thatm E ig d h i t d b n e o a t n t a h n: n k k w t a h r a d t m th od e e re of w l a o s ok a i n n y g at the question. Lord MELBOURN • • sufficient case fo r a Committee ; but if it should a pp ear to be the opinion of their Lords hi p s that i t was desirable to appoint a Committee, he could of course have no objection. The Earl of RADNOR thought that a Committee should be appointed. He bad Leen informed that the cells of the prisoners in the Penitentiary were adjacent, and that the prison ers actually unversed from one cell to another. He had no rea son to believe that there was no truth in the statement that those children could not speak articulately; but that, in fact, their voices were quite as full as those of children of their age generally were. That was the representation made to him, and by a person who had seen the children. With respect to the boys, too, the Governor said the only difference he found in them was that they were rather more orderly, but that they we re just as acute as when they entered the prison ; and with re spect to Welch, he had declared that he was much more co mfortable in the Penitentiary than in the workhouse. He (the Earl of Radnor) only wished that for the future Noble Lords would take a lesson, and not be so ready to come for ward with statements, without having first instituted every possible inquiry as to the truth of those statements ; for un doubtedly great mischief was frequently done by those hyper bolical statements. Lord LYNDHURST begged leave ask the Noble Lord what course he could have taken for the purpose of obtaining information in these cases except that of applying to the Ma gistrates before whom they had been investigated? Lord BROUGHAM wished to say one word in his own defence and that of his Noble and Learned Friend, against the lecture which the Noble Earl mounting in cathedram, had delivered ex cethrdra against Noble Lords for calling atten tion to facts that were in every one's mouth, and were dis cussed in every circle of the law within this city. his Noble and Learned Friend (Lyndhurst) had not chosen this matter as the subject of a party attack ; it had been pressed upon his attention. Application had been made to him in private; but since he ( Lord Lyndhurst) had ceased putting questions to Mi nisters whenever they were in their places, since he had ceased making frequent motions, since his habits had so entirely changed, did they think be had forgotten that Parliament was never better occupied than in considering any grievance al leged by any of th e su bj ec t s o f thi s realm ? Did the Noble Earl hold that because his Noble and Learned Friend had obtained those statements in private frotn a person whose name was not before the public, he was therefore guilty of a breach of duty which ought to call down a lecture, in the terms of a formal reprimand, for rashly bringing forward un founded accusations? Let his Lordship wait till he saw whe ther they were unfounded. The statements which lied been made were only those which had remained uncontradicted for a length of time, and which had been proclaimed to the world at a meeting of magistrates. He considered that the statements were made on a very solid foundation ; 'and if his Noble and Learned Friend had not brought them forward he should have thought him a most fastidious Member of Parlia ment.—( Hear.) The Earl of DEVON said that it was not his business to defend the Secretary of State, but he confessed that it was not easy to see what other course the Noble Lord could have taker. with respect to these children. There was the greatest danger in confining them in an ordinary prison amongst other offenders, where they would be subject to every species of con tamination ; and they had accordingly been then placed where they could have the most accurate and careful superinten dence. He had the opportunity of knowing, from persons well informed on the subject, that there was no foundation fir the charge as to the articulation of the children, and it was the opinion of several highly-respectable persons that the pm. soners had much improved, and were in a happier and more healthy state. Lord LYNDHURST begged only to ask his Noble Friend what statement made by him, except that having re ference to the articulation of the children, had been at all con tradicted ? If he would point out one single fact which had been contradicted, then he (Lord Lyndhurst) would admit the weight of his observations. Lord BROUGHAM wished to say another word upon this second lecture, and lie could not help observing that Chairmen of Quarter Sessions were very fond of giving them lectures. A laugh.) " Never touch a magistrate," said the late Mr. Wyndham, "because the instant you do so all the rest of the Justices set their backs up, and then follows a hue, buz, and bubble, bubble, and they are all upon you as if the most sacred penetralia of the Constitution had been entered."— ( Laughter.) So it was with his Noble and Learned Friend. There was the Whig on that side of the House—and the rank Tory—(Laughter)—near him, and the Waverers not far off. Every Justice in the country was on the back of his Noble and Learned Friend—and all this for supposing that a Justice was a fallible animal—he begged pardon—a fallible being.— ( Loud laughter.) But the Noble Lord had said, why didn't they apply to five vastly respectable men. For that purpose it would have been as well if their names had been men tioned, but this quingeviran of respectability was not applied to, and for the best reason, because they wished to know facts, of which those respectable men knew nothing, and all of which were in the breasts of other persons—such facts as the indictment, the trial, the conviction, upon which the ma gistrates were the proper, and, indeed, only authority. The Earl of RADNOR said it might, perhaps, have been Quixotic in him to take up the case against the magistrates, but most undoubtedly he had not supported them. After a few words from Lord Wharncliffe, Lord Brougham, the Earl of Dovon, Lord Melbourne, and Lord Lyndhurst, The LORD CHANCELLOR begged to move that a Committee be appointed to inquire into the cases of Matilda Seymour, Ann Gray, and Harriet Simpson, prisoners in the Penitentiary, Milbank, and of John Welch and William Clay, who have been lately confined in that prison. Lord LYNDHURST suggested that Miss Newman's case ought to be included in the inquiry. After a few words from Lord MELBOURNE, that suggestion was adopted, and Miss Newman's case was inserted as an ad ditional subject of inquiry, and the motion was agreed to. Their Lordships then adjourned till Thursday, CHURCH-RATES. TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN. SIR,— Should nose of your " legal friends" notice the in quiries of your Bingham correspondent in The Sun of the 24th, I would venture to suggest to him -Ist. That the entire current of the authorities supports the reply you have given : " That every rate is retrospective which is levied (laid) to defray expenses already incurred." But I think it is Sir Edward Sudden who, on a very recent occasion, declared his conviction that a rate should not be deemed retrospective which had been granted to Church wardens, within their year of office, for expenses incurred within the same year. 2d. That it is not " illegal to move that a vestry meeting be postponed (adjourned of course is meant) for six months." Such adjournment may be legally resolved by the vestry of today; but it has no legal effect to bar the assembly, upon due notice, of another vestry after the lapse of one week, which vestry will in no way be bound or eontroulled by the resolu tion of adjournment for six months, carried at the preceding vestry. 3d. That " a person whose name has not yet been put on the (any) rate-book" may not " demand to have it put there before the polling and then vote"—for as respects the question upon which the poll is taken, there can be no " rate-book" until the result of the poll shall have authorised a rate to be made—but every person liable to be rated, by virtue of the pos sible result of the poll, and consenting thereto, may, although not previously assessed to any rate, demand to vote upon that poll.--58 Geo. 111., c. 69, sec. 4. 4th. The question, " Has the Chairman a right to restrict the polling to one clay ?" involves matter of most vital import ance to the independence of parochial meetings. In Chitty's Blackstone, it is laid down that the Chairman of a vestry meeting has no power whatever to adjourn a meeting, or to controul its proceedings, but only to preserve order; and in Shaw's Parochial Lawyer, p. 234, that " The persons assem o'ed at a vestry, being all upon an equal footing, the power of adjourning it does not reside singly in the minister, or in any ether person as Chairman, or in the Churchwardens, but in the whole assembly; for, inter pares non est potestas ; and, therefore, the adjournment, as well as every other act of the vestry, must be decided by a majority of votes.—Stoughton v. Reynolds, Stran, 1045." Now, if this be so, as.regards a Chairman by election of a meeting, and to whom extensive powers may be freely dele gated, a fortiori it should be so in respect of one who assumes the chair ex officio, adversely, it may be, to the will of the meeting, and whose powers of offence against that will should therefore be construed almost with the strictness of a penal statute. . A polling from day to day is neither more nor less than an adjournment of the vestry from day to day. If the Chairman appoints a single day for taking a poll, and no resolution be passed by the meeting for extending the time, the assent of the vestry is virtually given to the arrangement ; the act of their official organ becomes their act by adoption, and its va lidity, in particular cases, would, according to recent adjudica tions, be dependent on the question, as to whether, in point of fact, the sense of the parish was fairly to be ascertained by a poll for the time limited. But it is a quite different, and, practically, a far more important question, whether, in case of a Chairman appointing a one day's poll, and the vestry ap pointing and taking a two day's poll, the result of the first day's poll could be maintained by the Chairman as deciding the result. lam not aware that this question has ever yet been put directly in issue ; it involves the question, as to whether an ex officio Chairman can, either by compulsory ad journment, or by arbitrary denial of adjournment, controul the decisions of a vestry, and make it speak contrary to its own voice ? And while, in some parishes, the arbitrary power as sumed by Churchwardens of setting at nought the decisions of a vestry is now being fairly tried, it were much to be wished that the arbitrary power assumed by ex officio Chairmen in other parishes, to control the decisions of the vestry, in limine, should also be brought to a conclusive issue. If I might venture to offer a suggestion to my fellow oppo nents of Church-rates, it would be, in all cases, boldly to ex ercise their constitutional rights, and thereby to throw upon the enemies of such popular and constitutional rights the onus of making good their aggressive powers. Your obedient servant, SAMUEL COURTAULD. Braintree, Feb. 25, 1838. SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS. The Licensed Victuallers in the borough of Marylebone arc likely to have a fine time of it, under the mild administra tion of Lord Teignmouth, in ease of his being elected to re present it in Parliament. It is not very likely that the Noble Lord will be selected for this purpose ; but it is as well for them to know that we have now before us a printed document which, without proof or evidence of any description, intimates that the Licensed Victuallers of Marylebone " are in the habit of allowing unlawful games, and gaming with cards, bagatelle-boards, &c.," and that his name stands second upon the list of those whose names are appended to the document ! We applaud the determination of the sages of Marylebone " to take it into their serious consideration, whether a license shall be renewed to any person so offending against the Act of Parliament, and the express conditions of the license ;" but we think it would have been as well, in the first place, to have duly considered whether such practices were common in Marylebone, and, in the second, whether it was always in the power of the landlords to prevent them, and whether it was with their consent that such prac tices wore permitted. These grave considerations appear to have been beneath the notice of P. Laurie, Chairman ; Teign mouth, E. Pcpys, C. Elliott, W. A. Mackinnon, Edward Budge, 11. C. Moreton Dyer, L. Archer Burton, T. Edw. Colebrooke, P. Laurie, jun. ; but they cannot well escape that of those who are thus summarily denounced, and in many in stances without any fault on their part. As a body, there is not a more independent or respectable class of voters in the borough of Marylebone than the Licensed Victuallers ; and wa question not that in this, as in every previous instance, 'they will do their duty, not only by their own interests, but also by those of the borough, which would be sadly compromised by the election of a Tory saint in the person of Lord Teignmouth. —Morning Advertiser. The Times makes a flourish that Ministers were beaten, and, as usual, misstates the case. The Ministers were not beaten. Tho short and simple statement of the question and division is—that in a division of 517 Members a mere small majority of 9is obtained, declaring what? Why, that the House of Commons is not guilty of perjury when acting in its judicial character. The Ministry as a Ministry, are no more implicated in this than Sir Robert Peel or Lord Maid stone ; but it suits the Tory organs to confound statements and propagate a lie.—lllorning Chronicle. ,f the The half-yearly meeting of the Proprietors of tt. General Steam Navigation Company was held yesterday at their office in Lombard-street. The affairs of the Company are in a very prosperous state, and the number of ships and e xtent of tonnage is yearly increasing. A dividend and bonus tstere declared, and the proprietors appeared highly satisfied with the report and accounts laid before them. The prospe rity of the Company, which has been of the • greatest psiblie utility, is now firmly and permanently established, and it gives us great pleasure to find that the undertaking is as advanta geous to the shareholders as it is beneficial to the country. THE BlGoTs.—The extreme section of the Isle of Wight Illiberals ihas got up petitions to tha Houses of Lords and Commons for " the immediate and permanent exclusion of all Roman Catholics from the Legislature," stating that the Relief Bill was a measure " highly offensive to Almighty God," and also the usual tirade about the Representatives of Ireland being perjured men. The petition contains about an equal amount of bad grammer and bad feeling. Indeed it is some consolation to find that ignorance and bigotry generally go hand in hand. After remaining more than a. month at Rowden's Library there are ten names.—Hampshire Inde pendent, COURT CIRCULAR. Queen Adelaide returns to her old rosidence in the Stable yard, St. James's, on Monday next. The Princess Augusta also leaves St. Leonard's on the same day fur her apartments in St. James's Palace. The Princess Sophia Matilda came to town yesterday from her residence at Blackheath, and visited her Majesty at the new Palace. The Duke of Cambridge honoured Sir John Shelley with his company at dinner on Monday, at his residence in Bel grave-square. The French Ambassador transacted business yesterday at the Foreign-office. Mr. Colville, Mr. R. Stewart, and Mr. G. R. Young had an interview with Lord Glcnelg yesterday at the Colonial office. A deputation, including Mr. Dennistoun, M. P. ; Mr. Gillon, M. P. ; the Rev. Dr. Wadham, the Rev. Dr. Heugh, the Rev. Dr. Beattie, the Rev. Mr. Harper, the Rev. Mr. French, and the Rer. Mr. King had an interview with Lord John Russell yesterday at the Fiume-office. Mr. Gillespie and Mr. Badgley (from Montreal) had an in terview with Lord Glenclg yesterday at the Colonial-office. Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Colville also had an interview with his Lordship yesterday. Viscount Melbourne had an audience yesterday of her Ma jesty. The .Judicial Committee of the Privy Council sat yesterday. Mr. Baron Park gave judgment on the part of their Lord ships in an appeal from British Guiana, txecutcrs of Urqu hurt v. Dent ; and 'Wilkinson v. Sanson—reversing the first decree of the Court below, and affirming the second decree. Mr. Justice Bosanquet gave judgment in an appeal from Trinidad, Browne v. Anderson, varying the decision of the Court below. Lord Brougham gave judgment in an appeal from Jamaica, Mitchell v. Ede. The Court rose at twelve o'clock. MR. EWART FOR MARYLEBONE. To the EDITOR of the MORNING ADVERTISER. Sia,—You, who have uniformly been a zealous advocate of every question of practical reform, will be gratified to learn that Mr. Ewart's canvass is going on most prosperously. The Liberals in general merge all minor differences, and concen trate their energies in supporting Mr. Ewart. Partisanship is lost in a feeling of patriotism. Lord Teignmouth's can vassers are resorting to that (fernier resort of baffled Toryism, namely, an outcry against the Poor- law Amendment Act. In stead of relying on any intrinsic merits of their own, they endeavour to acquire an adventitious importance by deprecat ing the pretensions of their opponents. Though Mr. Ewart would not encourage idleness at the expense of industry, he, nevertheless, would protect poverty from persecution. flow intolerably mean in a Tory candidate to pander to vulgar pre judices for the sake of catching a few stray votes! What must the Duke of Wellington, who is too magnanimous to gain a point by sinister purposes, think of his subordinates ? The Toi i2s have an inveterate hatred of Mr. Ewart, on account of that gentleman's repeated exposes of the c,il3 of primogeniture, which, after all, is the Parent of the Pension List. I know not any Gentleman more acceptable to all true Reformers than Mr. Ewart, who possesses determination without violence, and patriotism untinetured by partisanship. He is an advocate for the unrestricted diffusion of knowledge —a zealous supporter of of an extendod suffrage which would give the people electoral power, and of the Ballot which woult. protect them in the exercise of that power. All other mea sures tending to the public good have ever found in him a zealous advocate. Should not, then, every man who values that social privilege—the Elective Franchise—cordially sup port the candidate who has the inclination to servo the people, and ability to give effect to that inclination ? Who could hesitate in their choice between such a man and an avowed Tcry—a name politically ,synonimous with that of tyrant ?—I am, Sir, your obedient servant, Feb. 24. A FRIEND OF THE MANY. MR. E WART. Eaton-place, Feb. 27, 1838. Alv DEAR SIR,—I have been apprised that a subscription has been entered into by many kind friends, to meet the cx pences of my contest for the borough of Marylebone. For this indication of their friendly feeling I am ‘vatmly grateful, but for reasons which I am ready to assign, I most respectfully, but positively, decline their friendly offer. I am, my dear Sir, your most obedient servant, (Signed) WILLIAM EWART. Joseph Hume, Esq., M.P., Chairman, &c. FROM LAST NIGHT'S GAZETTE. ST. JAMES'S-PALACE. Fm3._ 21, 1835. The Queen was this day pleased to confer the honour of Knight hood upon Spencer Lambert Hunter Nassall, Esq.. Captain in the Royal Navy and Knight of the Royal Hanoverian Guelphie Order. CROWN-OFFICE, FEB. 27. MEMBER RETURNED TO SERVE IN THIS PRESENT PARLIAMENT. PEMBKOKE.—The Right Honourable Sir James Robert George Graham, Bart., in the room of Hugh Owen Owen, Esq., who has accepted the Chiltern Hundreds. WHITEHALL, JAN. 19. The Lord Chancellor has appointed William Hurd Aldam (and not Adlam, as inserted in the Gazette of the 16th instant), of Sheffield, in the county of York, Gent. ; Humphrey Arthur Gregg, of Kirkby Lonsdale, Gent.; Thomas Watkin Maddy, of Montgo mery, Gent. ; and William Overall, of Ringwood, in the county of Southampton, Gent., to be Masters Extraordinary in the high Court of Chancery. Commissions by the Lord Lieutenant of the County of Stafford. The Queen's Own Royal Regiment of Yeomanry Cavalry.— Arthur Stephens, Gent., to be Lieutenant ; Arthur Griffith, Gent., to be Cornet. BANKRUPTS. WILLIAM NOCKELLS and JOHN BARSHAM, oxalic acid manufacturers, Stratford, Essex, to surrender March 13, at half past eleven, and April 10, at eleven, at the Court of Bank ruptcy. Alsa g er, Birchin-lane, official assignee ; Trehern and White, Leadenhall-street. WILLIAM MORGAN, builder, Cheltenham, March 13 and April 10, at twelve, at the Royal Hotel, Cheltenham. King and Son, Serjeant's Inn, Fleet-street, London ; Chadborn, or Win tcrbotham, Cheltenham. GRIFFITH MORGAN, tanner, Dolyddbyrion, Carnarvon shire, March 15 and April 10, at eleven, at the Castle Hotel, Car narvon. Jones, Dolgelley; Lowe and Co., Southampton-build ings, Chancery-lane, - London. MATTHEW lIAWKES, auctioneer, Sharrington, Norfolk, March 13, and April 10, at eleven, at the Red Lion Inn, Fakenham. Ballachey and Son, Holt, Norfolk; Bridger, Finsbury-circus, London. RICHARD EVANS, innkeeper, Llanidloes, Montgomery shire, March 9, and April 10, at twelve, at the Herbert Arms Inn, Machynileth. Bigg, Southampton-buildings, London ; Marsh and Hayward, Llanidloes. JOHN MUDGE, printer, Devonport, March 14, and Aprillo, at eleven, at Elliott's Royal Hotel, Devonport. Bourdillon and Son, Great Winchester-street, London ; Husband, Devonport. GEORGE SHARL AND, wine merchant, Exeter, March 14 and April 10, at twelve, at the New London Inn, Exeter. Brut ton and Clipperton, Bedford-row, London ; Brutton and Lang worthy, Exeter. HENRY FREETH, perfumer, Bath, March 16 and April 10, at eleven, at the White Lion Inn, Bath. Clarke and Medcalf, Lincoln's-inn-fields, London ; Clarke and King, Bath. RICHARD MURRAY, stationer, Norwich, March 12, at ten, and April 10, at one, at the Angel Inn, Norwich. Bevan, Old Jewry, London ; Foster and Unthank, Norwich. JOHN DAFT, money scrivener, Nottingham, March 15, at twelve, and April 10, at one, at the George the Fourth Inn, Nottingham. Payne, Nottingham ; Taylor and Collisson, Great James-street, Bedford-row, Loadon. - SAMUEL RIDE, engineer, Leicester, March 12, and April 10, at eleven, at the Bluo Lion Inn, Leicester; Dyneley, Coverdale, and Lee, Gray's Inn, London ; Robinson, Ingram, and Ingrain, Leicester. _._____ JAMES RIDE, engineer, Leicester, March 12, and April 10, at twelve, at the Blue Lion Inn, Leicester. Dyneley, Corerdale, and Lee, Gray's Inn, London ; Robinson, Ingrain, and Ingram, Leicester. DIVIDENDS. At the Court of Bankruptcy, I3asinghall-street. N. Hades, bookseller, Piccadilly, March 26, at half-past eleven— J. Harkness, merchant, Addle-street, Wood-street, City, March 26, at two—T. Turner, upholsterer, New Bond-street, March '26, at ono—J. F. Pickering, tallow-chandler, Wath, Yorkshire, March 22, at half-past eleven—M. and W. King, millers, Kingsley, Hants, March 22, at half-past twelYe—A. Marsh, confectioner, Brentford, March 22, at one. In the Country. M. Marsden, upholsterer, Manchester, March 21, at twelve, at the Commissioners' Rooms, Manchester—T. Clark, sen., Swinford, Leicestershire, March 21, at one, at the Crown Inn, Lutterworth— S. Hewitt and T. Weatherby, calico printers, Manchester, March 21, at ten, at the Commissioners' Rooms, Manchester—M. and G. Naylor, leather dressers, Darlington, Durham, March 22, at two, at the King's Head Inn, Darlington—E. Ryals, table-knife manu facturer, Sheffield, March 21, at one, at the Town hall, Sheffield— W. Weare, dealer in wood, Leeds, March 27, at two, at the Court house, Leeds—T. Daniell, copper-smelter, Boulogne, March 23, at eleven, at Pearce's Hotel, Truro, Cornwall—T. Garbutt, woollen cord manufacturer, Manchester, March, 21, at one, at the Corn - inisioners' Rooms, Manchester—R. Parr, draper, Liverpool, March 21, at ten, at the Commissioners' Rooms, Manchester—T. Stockdale, jun., soap manufacturer, Liverpool, March 21, at one, at the Clarendon Rooms, Liverpool. CERTIFICATES, 111.tacir 20. T. Chapman and Co., coach masters, Birmingham—R. Walker, metallic gun-wadding manufacturer, Birmingham--W. Welch, cern dealer, Brockworth, Gloucestershire—W. I3runsdon, ironmonger, Cirencester—H. Norfolk, brewer, Manchester—J. Teasdale, road contractor, Bolton-le-Moors , Lancashire—M. Nolt, toy dealer, Reading, Berkshire—T. Stockdale, jun., scap manufacturer, Liver pool. PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED. J. Lane and G. D. Cobley, linendrapers, Tiverton, Devonshire —J. Walker and W. Coolies, carvers and gildcrs, Leamington Priors, Warwickshire—J. Forristcr and R. T. Skerratt, engravers, Burslem, Staffordshire—J. Morris and W. Sudbury, curriers and leather-sellers, Guildford, Surrey—F. Broome and R. Porter, gro cers, Oxford—J. Allen and R. Kenvon, engravers to calico printers, Manchester—H. Smidt and P. 1. Meugens, merchants, Lime street, City—J. Cook, and W. T. Barker, glass chandelier, and drop-makers, Birmingham—S. Harwood and T. Eustace, linen manufacturers, Shrewsbury—J. Harris and R. Deaki n, publishers, Sheffield—W. Lyth and .1. Arrowsmith, common brewers, Salford. Lancashire—J. Brandon and Co., Walbrook-buildings, City—W. Gregory and C. Poynter, linendrapers, Huddersfield—E. Abrahall and C. Hawkins, grocers, Whitchurch , Buckinghamshire--.1.... Burgess and D. Percival, woollen drapers, Manchester—E. Clegg and Co., commission agents, Manchester—H. Lakin, jun., an d G. Hackett, timber merchants , Hanley Castle, Worcestershire—J. Dale and Co., ironmongers, (so far as regards F. Dale) Scarbo rough—G. Wilson, packers, Manchester—D. Riu,isthtfoarntdh Gant. Pearson, r ough—G. Greyson and R. Gre y son, p last erers, Preston— T. Horsey and W. Atkinson, farmers, Diesbury, York.3hire— Pearson, tavern keepers,_ Selby, Yorkshire—T. J ac k son an d W . Bickett, cattle dealers, indermere, Westmoreland.